Belated non-party fence-sitters cannot claim appointment from a waiting list under a judgment limited to original petitioners.

The Centralized Selection and Appointment Committee issued Employment Notice No. 01/2016 dated 7 February 2016 for appointment to the post of Clerk in the Civil Courts of Bihar.

The appellant qualified in the preliminary and main examinations and was placed at Serial No. 951 in the Unreserved waiting list with 74 marks. Prince, placed at Serial No. 960, had identical marks but was ranked lower because he was younger; Nikhil Vinay was placed at Serial No. 1044 with 73.66 marks.

Although 273 selected candidates did not join, the appellant was not appointed from the waiting list.

Other wait-listed candidates challenged the non-consideration of their claims, and in L.P.A. Nos. 650, 657 and 661 of 2022, the Division Bench directed consideration of the petitioners for appointment against unfilled and anticipated vacancies during the relevant two-year period.

Pursuant to that judgment, 20 candidates, including Prince and Nikhil Vinay, were appointed on 25 September 2023.

The appellant issued a legal notice on 19 October 2023, which was rejected by the Committee on 25 November 2023.

His writ petition seeking appointment was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on grounds of delay, laches and non-joinder in the earlier litigation.

The present Letters Patent Appeal challenged that dismissal.

Whether a wait-listed candidate who was not a party to the earlier Letters Patent Appeals could claim appointment solely on the basis of the judgment dated 19 April 2023 and the appointment of candidates ranked lower than him?

Whether the judgment dated 19 April 2023 operated in rem for the benefit of all similarly situated wait-listed candidates, or was confined to the petitioners before the Court?

Whether the appellant’s claim was barred by delay, laches, acquiescence and fence-sitting?

Whether the appointment of candidates ranked lower than the appellant violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

The Court considered Rules 7(12), 7(13) and 7(14) of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class-III and Class-IV) Rules, 2009, in the context of the validity of the waiting list and vacancies arising during the relevant period of two years.

It applied the principle that relief granted in a judgment ordinarily benefits similarly situated persons, but that such benefit is subject to the exceptions of delay, laches, acquiescence and fence-sitting, as recognised in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, and U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464.

Under C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115, a representation or its rejection does not revive a stale claim or create a fresh cause of action.

The Court also relied on Chairman & Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, concerning belated claims by persons who remained inactive until others obtained relief, and State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309, and Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 471, for the rule that a select or waiting list has a limited statutory life and that stale claims should not disturb rights that have accrued to others.

The coordinate Bench decision in Patna High Court v. Chandan Kumar, L.P.A. No. 891 of 2025, decided on 24 March 2026, was treated as directly applicable on the identical selection process and held that later applicants were fence-sitters.

The Court held that the operative portion of the 19 April 2023 judgment directed the authorities to consider “each of the petitioners” in those appeals; it neither issued a general mandamus for implementation of the entire waiting list nor conferred an automatic right of appointment on every wait-listed candidate.

Accordingly, the relief was in personam, even though the earlier judgment considered the relevant recruitment rules.

The appellant had remained inactive from the preparation of the waiting list in 2017–2018, through the non-joining of selected candidates and the earlier litigation, and approached the Court only after the appointments of 25 September 2023.

His legal notice and subsequent writ petition could not revive the stale claim.

The appointment of Prince and Nikhil Vinay did not establish arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 because those appointments were made pursuant to a specific judicial direction in favour of the litigants in the earlier appeals, rather than through an independent or selective administrative exercise by the respondents.

The coordinate Bench’s decision in Chandan Kumar further required adoption of the same conclusion.

The authorities relied upon by the appellant, including Behram Khurshid Pesikaka and Nar Singh Pal, were distinguished as involving, respectively, the binding effect of a constitutional declaration and protection against punitive termination, neither of which applied to a belated claim for appointment from a waiting list.

It held that the earlier judgment dated 19 April 2023 was confined to the petitioners before the Court and did not create a general right of appointment for all wait-listed candidates.

The appellant’s claim was barred by delay, laches, acquiescence and fence-sitting, and the appointment of lower-ranked candidates pursuant to the earlier judicial directions did not violate Articles 14 or 16.

Finding no error or perversity in the learned Single Judge’s order, the Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 22 February 2024 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 1063 of 2024.